Well, at first blush, was this a good or a bad PR? To judge by the price action, it seems to be being well received.

So, I'm going to drill down into it at a lot of detail, so hold onto your chin-straps, LOL.

And, since people are busy and understandably might dislike lengthy posts, here is the my overall conclusion:
1.) SHAREHOLDERS ARE IN A VASTLY IMPROVED POSITION AS REGARDS THE INVENTORY OF CLAIMS, which management has accomplished via a deliberate business plan

and

2.) ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT SFMI INSIDERS ARE DESTROYING THE COMPANY BY LINING THEIR POCKETS WITH HUGE DILUTION-DRIVEN SHARE POSITIONS

Quote: I hold that it is a fact that SFMI insiders are NOT hurting shareholders, destroying the company with dilution, and lining their own pockets at the expense of ordinary shareholders.

Thats my conclusion. If you can tolerate a lengthy explanation, read on.

:o)

And also, it matters that all the claims today are LODE claims. It matters a huge amount, as a matter of fact, that they have moved everything to LODE claims, but more on that below.

In any event, I assure everyone that I am 100% correct about this opinion.

First off, the PR today contained a paragraph that admitted to a human error. It listed several claims that were permitted to lapse and which, through human error, were titled to SFMI rather than to GHDC.

To comprehend what this actually means, lets look at the 2010 & 2011 claims inventories.

The following is a direct excerpt from last year's 10K ( http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=7837890 )

Pages 7 & 8

Owned Land and Claims : We also own the following claims:

Name Type of Claim Acres

Sinker Tunnel #1 Unpatented Tunnel location 20.6
Sinker #1 Unpatented Mill site location 5
Sinker #2 Unpatented Mill site location 5
Sinker #3 Unpatented Mill site location 5
Sinker #4 Unpatented Mill site location 5
The Cumberland Lode Patented Claim 5.927
The Louisiana Lode Patented Claim 5.927

And the following is the same section from this years just filed 10K:

http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=8539985
Again, pages 7 & 8

Owned Land and Claims : We also own the following claims:

Name Ownership Interest Type of Claim Acres

Burka #1 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 18.85
Burka #2 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 14.75
Burka #3 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 12.75
Burka #4 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Burka #5 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 4.00
Burka #6 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 14.00
Burka #7 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 9.95
Burka #8 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 19.05
Burka#9 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 18.25
Western Horn #1 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 18.50
Western Horn #2 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Western Horn #3 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 19.50
Western Horn #4 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Western Horn #5 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Western Horn #6 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Western Horn #7 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Western Horn #8 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 13.50
Western Horn #9 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Western Horn #10 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Western Horn #11 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Western Horn #12 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Western Horn #13 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Western Horn #14 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Diamond Creek #1 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Diamond Creek #2 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Diamond Creek #3 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Diamond Creek #4 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Diamond Creek #5 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Diamond Creek #6 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Diamond Creek #8 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 9.85
Diamond Creek #9 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 7.25
Diamond Creek #10 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 19.75
Diamond Creek #11 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 17.00
Diamond Creek #12 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 13.00
Diamond Creek #13 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 14.75
Diamond Creek #14 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 2.50
Diamond Creek #15 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 6.50
Diamond Creek #16 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 5.25
Diamond Creek #17 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 2.00
Diamond Creek #18 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 2.85
Diamond Creek #19 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 6.85
Diamond Creek #22 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 8.00
Diamond Creek #24 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 17.25
Diamond Creek #25 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 18.65
Diamond Creek #26 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 17.50
Diamond Creek #27 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 5.50
Diamond Creek #28 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 4.75
Diamond Creek #29 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 7.25
Diamond Creek #30 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Diamond Creek #31 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 16.85
Diamond Creek #32 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Diamond Creek #33 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Diamond Creek #34 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Diamond Creek #35 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 16.00
Diamond Creek #36 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 17.00
Diamond Creek #37 100% Unpatented Lode Claim 20.00
Sinker #1 100% Mill Site Claim 5.00
Sinker #2 100% Mill Site Claim 5.00
Sinker #3 100% Mill Site Claim 5.00
Sinker #4 100% Mill Site Claim 5.00
Sinker Tunnel 100% Tunnel Site Claim 207.00
Cumberland 100% Patented Lode Claim 5.93
Louisiana 100% Patented Lode Claim 14.00

OK so what we have here are is an inventory of claims from last year and from this year.

Those who are attentive to details will notice what I noticed, and to help the longs who believe that SFMI is an investment of huge potential that is in the process of reaching that goal, I want to draw a spotlight onto some of these details.

Lets start by looking at the differences between the claims in last year's inventories and those same claims in this year's inventory.

Notice, there are far more claims this year. That said, I've got to start soemwhere so I'm going to first look at the claims common to both years.

LAST YEAR
Sinker Tunnel #1 Unpatented Tunnel location 20.6 acres

THIS YEAR
Sinker Tunnel 100% Tunnel Site Claim 207.00 acres

The claim size grew from 20.6 acres to 207 acres.

Not bad, folks,

but whats an unpatented claim?

Check out this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_Act_of_1872

An unpatented claim is defined as follows:

Quote: All mining claims are initially unpatented claims, which give the right only for those activities necessary to exploration and mining, and last only as long as the claim is worked every year. For instance, the failure to prosecute the work on the tunnel for six months is considered the abandonment of rights to all the undiscovered veins on the line of the tunnels. In addition, at least $100 worth of labor shall be performed or improvements made annually. If this does not occur, the claim or mine upon which such failure occurred shall be made to relocation in the same manner as if no location of the same had ever been made. The original mining law gave miners the opportunity to obtain patents (deeds from the government), much as farmers could obtain title under the Homestead Act. The owner of a patented claim can put it to any legal use. The process of patenting claims has been perhaps the most controversial part of the mining law. Because of a Congress-imposed moratorium, the federal government has not accepted any new applications for mining claim patents since October 1, 1994.

So basically, we now know that there are two basic claims types, but that the more preferable (patent claims), is unattainable on government land due to action from Congress. Thus, the highest attainable claim type SFMI can obtain from land on government property is an unpatented claim.

During 2011, SFMI has made progress on two fronts with the claims it held in 2010:

A.) SFMI worked to accomplish getting the claim type on these claims changed so that they are no longer unpatented.

B.) SFMI has increase the acreage involved in the claim from 20.6 acres to 207 acres.

Also note that the fact that this is an unpatented claim tells us that the Sinker Tunnel is not on government land.

OK.... now lets compare every claim held last year to this year:

LAST YEAR
The Cumberland Lode Patented Claim 5.927 acres
The Louisiana Lode Patented Claim 5.927 acres

THIS YEAR
Cumberland 100% Patented Lode Claim 5.93 acres
Louisiana 100% Patented Lode Claim 14.00 acres

Notice that these claims are PATENTED and that, in 2011, SFMI management added acres to the Loisiana claim.

Question:
What is the difference between a LODE claim and a PLACER claim?

Again, from this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_Act_of_1872

LODE CLAIM - A lode claim, also known in California as a quartz claim, is a claim over a hard rock deposit

PLACER CLAIM - A placer claim is a claim over gold-bearing sand or gravel, often along a stream or river.

So SFMI during 2011, has systemmatically moved from claims on gravel to claims on hard rock;

LODE claims! Across the board, LODE CLAIMS.

:o)

So that brings up a thought I'll throw out there:

Quote: If management actually intends to scam me, why bother with the time and expense involved in going from PLACER claims to LODE claims in 100% of the cases where it is an option? Why go to the effort & expense?

If they don't really intend to drill, WHY WOULD THEY GO TO THE EFFORT TO ELEMINATE EVERY GRAVEL CLAIM AND CHOOSE TO HOLD ONLY HARD ROCK CLAIMS?

Seems to me that it would be far cheaper for a scam outfit to never bother to obtain LOAD claims. Why bother?

Seems to me that they wouldn't bother to go to the effort to make everything a LODE claim if all they really intended was to dilute value to nothing.

Quote: AFTER ALL.... WHAT'S MORE VALUABLE: A CLAIM TO A BUNCH OF GRAVEL OR A CLAIM TO A HARD ROCK VEIN?

OK... lets finish out comparing 2010 & 2011. Lets look at the Sinker Tunnel.

LAST YEAR
Sinker #1 Unpatented Mill site location 5 acres
Sinker #2 Unpatented Mill site location 5 acres
Sinker #3 Unpatented Mill site location 5 acres
Sinker #4 Unpatented Mill site location 5 acres

THIS YEAR
Sinker #1 100% Mill Site Claim 5.00 acres
Sinker #2 100% Mill Site Claim 5.00 acres
Sinker #3 100% Mill Site Claim 5.00 acres
Sinker #4 100% Mill Site Claim 5.00 acres

Notice anything important?

These are no longer unpatentend claims.

Get a pattern?

The inventories of claims ownership from the two years are 100% inconsistent and entirely out of character if the only intention of SFMI insiders is to gut the value of the company via self-serving, pocket lining dilution, so they can secretly skulk away, leaving ordinary shareholders with little, if any, value.

OK, that covers 2010 and 2011.

What about claims added in 2011?

NEW 2011 CLAIMS

Total claims acreage added 2011 - 859.4 acres

Number of claims added - 56 claims

Please notice that these are all LOAD claims.

This means that SFMI has been building up a considerable inventory of HARD ROCK claims throughout 2011.

SFMI has been systematic, people! Nothing but LODE claims!

Let me just say this:

Quote: It is important to me, as a shareholder, that SFMI has been systematically conducting a business plan to assemble a big portfolio of HARD ROCK LOAD CLAIMS wIth which it controls more and more of War Eagle Mountain.

So now lets look at today's PR, shall we?

Quote from today's PR:

Quote:

( http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=52268873&symbol=SFMI )

In 2010, as a result of a survey of portions of War Eagle Mountain, GoldLand Holdings Co. (OTCBB: GHDC) allowed its "Unpatented" Placer Claims to lapse, and reapplied for new "Unpatented" Lode Claims covering the same veins. Due to human error, these "Unpatented" claims had been registered under the SFMI inventories of claims. Thus, the "Unpatented" Placer Claims previously known as Great Western #1 through 4 and Cape Horn #1 are now known as Western Horn #7 through 14, which are Unpatented Lode Claims. The "Unpatented" Placer Claims previously known as GoldLand #25 and 26 are now known as Western Horn #3 through 6, which are "Unpatented" Lode Claims. The "Unpatented" Placer Claims previously known as GoldLand #13 through 15 are now known as Diamond Creek #5, 6 and 8, which are "Unpatented" Lode Claims. These new "Unpatented" Lode Claims were erroneously titled in SFMI's name, but have been transferred formally to GoldLand.

Note that the claims that GoldLand let lapse were PLACER claims. Now they are LODE claims.

Now here is something to consider: management deliberately let these claims lapse as a method to an end, going from gravel and sand (PLACER) to hard rock claims (LODE) according to plan and 100% on purpose.

The error was not in letting them lapse. The PR today makes it clear that "These new Unpatented Lode Claims were erroneously titled in SFMI's name, but have been transferred formally to GoldLand."

Now people, while a claim is in valid status, the claimant is protected from having their claim suffer usurpation by outside interests.

So, if there is even the outside chance that trumpeting your successes would attract attention that causes you trouble when you try to re-establish your claims when their period of currency lapses, why would you send out bragging PRs and fire off fireworks to tell the world about the success that is going on at SFMI?[

Of course such bragging PRs would generate higher prices, but what serves long term interests better: bragging to genrate short term gains in price or protecting against any possible threat from outside parties by keeping a lid on things? Why alert outside parties that they need to be on stand-by to try to swoop in ans steal the ultra-valuable claims from us when the claims come up for re-establishment?

Neither the bad PRs nor the issuance of restricted shares is evidence of a broken business plan or of self-serving by management insiders, IMHO.

When the time is right, the bragging and trumpeting will commence, but while this little company is establishing the fact that it has 4.38 g/ton Gold and 16.44 g/ton Silver, my interests are better protected by them never even coming close to trumpetting these things than if they were to brag, draw attention, and suffer competition from outside interests.

And look at it this way: 4.38 g/ton Gold from waste piles is a birdnest on the ground, if you ask me.

All said then, as regards the things that can clearly be garnered after the PR today, I do not think there is a shred of evidence supporting the contention that SFMI insiders are destroying this company.

To judge by the evidence that is hiding in plain sight, the insiders are really doing a bangup job.

Hope this helps.

:o)

Imperial Whazoo